Author
Topic: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2] (Read 79474 times)

On the gear issue, the other big issue is keeper rate. Convenience is a major reason why I'm keen to upgrade, but keeper rate is another. Not that is applies in every circumstance, but it often does.

I'd like to explore some theories on why Canon's next-gen sensor tech is proving slow to emerge. Here are four theories, not mutually exclusive.

1) I've read that Sony have been extremely aggressive in patenting new sensor tech over the last few years. Maybe Canon is or has been struggling to achieve similar or better results by methods different enough not to infringe on existing patents.2) Milking the existing fab for profits. Already beaten to death on this forum.3) Maybe Canon are hoping to leapfrog the competition, rather than just match them.4) Maybe they have a rigidly set product cycle (4 years?) in mind for the 7D / XXD series going forwards. But I doubt that.

Meanwhile my poor 550D is getting pummelled, up around 80k actuations. If I do any extended trips into remote areas, where I can't afford a breakdown (I've been risking it on such trips until now), I might need to pick up a 60D or 7D which I'd then sell when reaching the next serious upgrade. But I'm really looking forward to seeing what the 7D ii brings to the table... APS-C has advantages for some of what I do.

I find this thread quite an interesting read. My opinion can stir so much here but have yet to be proved otherwise from my original statement. It's really a true statement from the dawn of photography. I'll just say that consider how wet-plates, to dry plates, to roll film and to digital have been made to make the art form more convienent. Yet the actual art form of composition in the frame, predates photography by thousands of years.

I find this thread quite an interesting read. My opinion can stir so much here but have yet to be proved otherwise from my original statement. It's really a true statement from the dawn of photography. I'll just say that consider how wet-plates, to dry plates, to roll film and to digital have been made to make the art form more convienent. Yet the actual art form of composition in the frame, predates photography by thousands of years.

Exactly. Just how you view f/4 and f/2.8 are virtually the same. Doesn't matter.

I could shoot MF film to get a similar look but its more inconvienent for me. I'd shoot a more inconvienent system if need be and still get my photos.

If you take a comment out of context you can make anything up. A FF f4 and a crop camera f2.8 are virtually the same!

But your latest outlandish comment states, by logical extension, depth of field has no importance in photography. You claim you can shoot any image with any camera give enough time and application, how do you limit the dof with your box brownie, P&S or iPhone to get you the same "unique look" as your FF camera and your 135 f2 wide open? You can't. You are just being stubborn, obtuse and foolish.

Logged

Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

I find this thread quite an interesting read. My opinion can stir so much here but have yet to be proved otherwise from my original statement. It's really a true statement from the dawn of photography. I'll just say that consider how wet-plates, to dry plates, to roll film and to digital have been made to make the art form more convienent. Yet the actual art form of composition in the frame, predates photography by thousands of years.

Exactly. Just how you view f/4 and f/2.8 are virtually the same. Doesn't matter.

I could shoot MF film to get a similar look but its more inconvienent for me. I'd shoot a more inconvienent system if need be and still get my photos.

If you take a comment out of context you can make anything up. A FF f4 and a crop camera f2.8 are virtually the same!

But your latest outlandish comment states, by logical extension, depth of field has no importance in photography. You claim you can shoot any image with any camera give enough time and application, how do you limit the dof with your box brownie, P&S or iPhone to get you the same "unique look" as your FF camera and your 135 f2 wide open? You can't. You are just being stubborn, obtuse and foolish.

like I said before, I'm not going to answer every single situation you present, that's for your imagination. You find the answer but I already know of a few to the one you mentioned above. I'll leave it at that.

Exactly. Just how you view f/4 and f/2.8 are virtually the same. Doesn't matter.

I could shoot MF film to get a similar look but its more inconvienent for me. I'd shoot a more inconvienent system if need be and still get my photos.

If you take a comment out of context you can make anything up. A FF f4 and a crop camera f2.8 are virtually the same!

But your latest outlandish comment states, by logical extension, depth of field has no importance in photography. You claim you can shoot any image with any camera give enough time and application, how do you limit the dof with your box brownie, P&S or iPhone to get you the same "unique look" as your FF camera and your 135 f2 wide open? You can't. You are just being stubborn, obtuse and foolish.

like I said before, I'm not going to answer every single situation you present, that's for your imagination. You find the answer but I already know of a few to the one you mentioned above. I'll leave it at that.

No, you are just being stubborn, obtuse, and foolish. It's a copout to not answer. You aren't answering because you have no answer. You can't debate a point and not actually provide arguments and evidence that back up your point, however that is what you are trying to do. Private isn't asking you to answer every single situation possible...he is asking you to explain, for a single very specific situation, how your argument that "any gear works" applies. You are, once again, ignoring the point being made, sidestepping the argument with a convenient little quip that does nothing to prove your point. The stubborn evasion only makes your argument look weaker, not stronger.

Exactly. Just how you view f/4 and f/2.8 are virtually the same. Doesn't matter.

I could shoot MF film to get a similar look but its more inconvienent for me. I'd shoot a more inconvienent system if need be and still get my photos.

If you take a comment out of context you can make anything up. A FF f4 and a crop camera f2.8 are virtually the same!

But your latest outlandish comment states, by logical extension, depth of field has no importance in photography. You claim you can shoot any image with any camera give enough time and application, how do you limit the dof with your box brownie, P&S or iPhone to get you the same "unique look" as your FF camera and your 135 f2 wide open? You can't. You are just being stubborn, obtuse and foolish.

like I said before, I'm not going to answer every single situation you present, that's for your imagination. You find the answer but I already know of a few to the one you mentioned above. I'll leave it at that.

No, you are just being stubborn, obtuse, and foolish. It's a copout to not answer. You aren't answering because you have no answer. You can't debate a point and not actually provide arguments and evidence that back up your point, however that is what you are trying to do. Private isn't asking you to answer every single situation possible...he is asking you to explain, for a single very specific situation, how your argument that "any gear works" applies. You are, once again, ignoring the point being made, sidestepping the argument with a convenient little quip that does nothing to prove your point. The stubborn evasion only makes your argument look weaker, not stronger.

How about stitching or LF or brenzer method or lining up ten brownie box cameras. Like I said, I won't answer every situation but Ill leave that to your imagination. If you lack that, well I can't help you.

While I'm on it, can someone explain what a Western Grebe is, and you have to choose between drowning or spending €14000 to get a picture of it ?

The Western Grebe is an aquatic bird..... sort of like a duck.... and found on the western half of North America.... HEY! Now I know why it's called the WESTERN Grebe!.... Allow me to quote the book Birds of Canada....

Western Grebes are perhaps best known for thier elaborate and highly ritualized courtship displays. During the "weed dance" the male and female swim with thier torsos and heads held high, carressing each other while aquatic vegetation is held in thier bills.

There you go.... it has to be about the "weed dance".... you just gotta be smokin weed to try and follow this topic!

"I am uninterested in the notion that a good photographer can make good photos with any gear. That's NOT THE POINT!!"

That's the whole point right there but gear makes the job more convenient.

No, that's not the point. It was never anyone's point. Its been YOUR point, but you've been ignoring everyone elses' point.

I'll try one last time. Lets see whether you succeed or fail at this test.

You see a Western Grebe off the sandy shore you are standing on. You are standing right at the waters edge. The Grebe some 65 feet off shore. The water out there is 10 feet deep. You have at your disposal a supercheap $109 Canon PowerShot A1400, and a 5D III with a 600mm f/4 L lens. Which camera will take the better photo?

And I don't mean something that is more convenient. I mean, BETTER PHOTO. Sharper detail. Less noise. Thinner DOF. Brighter exposure. No blur from camera shake. BETTER FRIKKIN PHOTO!! Which camera?

Let's do one better, I'll get a better shot from the A1400 wading water getting the shot closer than you will with that 600L you have.

RLP: I was reading this thread and sort of tracking along with you when you said something like 'photographer is more important than equipment' till I reached this post. I fist - palmed and shouted "HOW DUMB" so loud that the neighbor came to check if all is ok.

What in the holy hell is Canon doing? To many stupid cinema cams and lenses and idiotic mirrorless bodies and lenses?

They're already way, way late to the party and they're delaying again?

We need some low read-noise sensors, some high-pixel-count sensors (cropping is a big deal for me), and some new bodies. The 5DIII is a great camera, but has high read noise. The 7D is old, has the old 18MP sensor (not bad, but not outstanding either) and the new AF systems are better.

I want a 7DII with near-zero read noise sensor and a 5DIIIn with nothing new but the low read-noise technology in the fall!

Oh, and while we're at it, VIDEO CROP MODE!!!! And expanded version with infinite steps and smooth zooming in any resolution would be really, really helpful!

Got as far as page 1 with this and yeah, I am done reading!!! Will comment to this one and maybe read the last 2 pages...ugggg

I want transporter devices and hoverboards...but you know what...not happening...what about jet packs with built in coffee makers?? not happening... Be real here... single digit series bodies have at least a 3 year life cycle...more realistically a 4 year life cycle. So, take your wants and file them away in the land of not happening! 5d4 won't be around until 2015. If they do have a non 1d series high MP body in the pipeline for 2014, it will have a new name (I guess it could be a 5ds (s for studio). My bet is that it won't be the great all around camera the 5d3 is, it will be a studio and landscape beast...but I highly doubt it will be a rockstar at higher ISO's. 5d series is built for the event/wedding shooter crowd...it's a big niche...new big MP's will be designed to fill the other niche and probably have a very Medium format feel...

as to 7d2 ---that one puzzles me...if it's gonna be a sports/wildlife body.. why wouldn't they base it on the 1dx model and the 1dx sesnor (aka like a crop sensor 5d3?). How are they gonna balance big MP with high fps and have expanded ISO performance (for sports andwildlife you will need to crank the ISO to keep a reasonable SS...big MP and new sensor tech is more for slower moving studio stuff....hmmmmmmm

Lets move on. So with 7D2 coming in 14, and a 1 series high MP coming in 14, that would make for only two notable DSLR bodies next year (ok 70D would be three if it waits that long), plus the obligatory new Rebels, of course, which hatch frequently. I guess i don't see whats so spectacular about the number of 2014 DSLR Bodies, and what a great year it will be -- beyond of course the fact that we may see Canon's price interpretation of what a high MP body should command from the market, and whatever they reveal in the 7D2. is anyone anticipating more than this?

Canon has repeatedly said that the 7D2 will be "a significant upgrade" and "a game-changer". The safest bet is new sensor technology and improvements to AF, burst rate, video, and remote control. At the minimum it should be the unveiling of sensor performance that the rumoured high-megapixel camera will have.... and it is possible that they will skip over the .18 micron technology to something else... who knows?

And that's the crux of it.... "Who knows?" In the meantime we wildly speculate. We have no hard evidence to back up our speculations, but it's fun to dream.

I'll probably get one when it is released.... but I am patient enough to wait, plus my 60D works just fine.... I bet it has at least another 15000 shutter releases on it before the 7D2 comes out

Yea I'd rather widely speculate on that then about what doesn't matter to rl. I'm wondering if we will see only 2 or more than 2 bodies

[sigh] the kids are fighting again....

It seems obvious that the current technology has gone about as far as it's going to go.... No real increases in APS-C land since the original 7D, just improvements in accessories and in-camera jpegs, but very little change in the RAW files. FF is about 2 stops better, mostly due to the larger pixel sizes. Look at the T5i..... the dial goes around.... that's it for improvements over the T4i! Current technology is at it's limits!

I can see things being slow in the non-rebel segment until new tech and methods break things loose. It makes sense to hold back until they are ready.... and when they are ready I can see a quick wave of upgrading the 7D and the entirety of the FF line. (quick being a year and a half)

Quote

and when they are ready I can see a quick wave of upgrading the 7D

I see that so many 7d owners are 7d fanatics and lovers... I also see that the consensus is huge of 7d owners that the high iso performance is the biggest issue for all or most. If they address this issue by at least a 1 stop improvement and tweak the AF to a new level or standard, I see the 7D MK II's flying off the shelves, especially for current 7D owners.

Many of them have refused to jump to the 5d3, never wanted a 5d2 maybe due to price or fear of losing reach with the ff specs and the 5d2 really wasn't an upgrade for most 7D owners. And drool as they might, many, many 7D owners cannot afford the 1Dx.

Canon has an opportunity to make a huge upgrade but I believe that even if it's a reasonable upgrade that does a good job of addressing those 2 issues, it will be one of their biggest sellers ever... The other wave of 7D Mk II buyers will likely be the 60D owners that didn't jump on the 70D...

While I'm on it, can someone explain what a Western Grebe is, and you have to choose between drowning or spending €14000 to get a picture of it ?

The Western Grebe is an aquatic bird..... sort of like a duck.... and found on the western half of North America.... HEY! Now I know why it's called the WESTERN Grebe!.... Allow me to quote the book Birds of Canada....

Western Grebes are perhaps best known for thier elaborate and highly ritualized courtship displays. During the "weed dance" the male and female swim with thier torsos and heads held high, carressing each other while aquatic vegetation is held in thier bills.

There you go.... it has to be about the "weed dance".... you just gotta be smokin weed to try and follow this topic!

I like this weed dance and will perform it right now!!!

Ok...like I said in my first reply...not reading past page 2...and I guess not going back beyond page 19 (I was going to read page 18, but I have the general idea of what was going on there....)

Does gear matter -- yesDoes the photographer behind the gear matter ---- yescan every photographer afford every piece of gear --- noDoes it end up boiling down to making the best with what you have --- yesDoes reading and replying to this thread make better use of my time than playing call of duty ---I am really not sure...

OK...back to practicing the weed dance...which is i think the best part of this whole topic!

Some logic?Point nr 2, 18 or 21Mp . more Mp is always better, it could be at least 24Mp or rather more considering the sensor development this last years

I'd like to see a 42MP sensor, it's not a monstrous file size and you won't be affected by diffraction at F2. Not that diffraction makes a big difference, many cameras today are theoretically affected at F4, but you don't see people saying that all their F4 pictures are terrible.